Monday, May 9

Did Trump Win After All?

My husband and I just watched the newly released documentary "2000 Mules" tonight about illegal vote casting in the 2020 presidential election in the US, and I just had to write about it. Ok, that and a commenter said I should stick to spanking and not do politics, and I'm a bit contrarian that way...

View it at

I first heard about the documentary from a debunk on some news outlet. I read the debunk and it seemed reasonable, but I always like to give the other side a fair shake, and since everybody claims there is no evidence of illegal vote casting big enough to impact the election, and this documentary purported to show evidence that there indeed was, I was interested, sure.

The basic premise is that in the swing states specifically (and maybe others, but nobody looked and what's the point?) there is tremendous evidence of massive "ballot harvesting". That is, paying people to go collect ballots, dropping the collected ballots off at various Democrat get out the vote not-for-profit organizations, and then having other people pick them up and drop off multiple completed ballots at a time in ballot boxes. All of this activity was Democrat, and shifted the election overnight dramatically towards Biden. And it's all illegal.

The documentary covered work carried out by an organization called TrueTheVote. The folks bought data containing detailed tracks of the movements of people in and around certain key precincts of swing states. The data came from cellphones. It has the same accuracy as Google maps when you're using it to guide you. It uses both GPS and WiFi to triangulate location and timestamp.

Here is an example of what they found:

This line is the track of a single individual (same cell phone at any rate). The small orange dots are ballot drop boxes. The circled icons are where these not-for-profits are located. In each case it was not just a drive by, but they stopped and did something. They combined this data with government surveillance video obtained under freedom of information to see what they were doing.

Here are a couple they showed in the documentary:

These are both very late at night (1am-3am sort of thing), and correspond to tracks of people who made multiple stops at multiple ballot boxes and not-for-profits. The guy on top had so many ballots in his hand that he could not stuff them all through the slot at one time and a bunch fell on the ground. The woman on the bottom is seen wearing surgical gloves that she removes immediately after stuffing the ballot box and tosses (there was a conviction that made the news the night before that indicated they convicted somebody ballot stuffing via fingerprints on the envelopes, and so multiple of these mules were seen wearing gloves in the following days).

Here's some more.

This brazen woman had a stack of ballots in her hand, and she can be seen moving her hand with some number of ballots in it five times to the slot of the box. Again. remember, she did this at least 10 times to qualify.

Here's a guy in the dead of the night, pushing in at least 10 total.

Here's a guy who stuffed a bunch in and then took a photo of the ballot box. Some of the mules were not paid unless they came back with timestamped photos of the ballot boxes they visited.

Here's a paid young mule on a bike. First he's seen stuffing some ballots in, and then he's seen taking the photo he needs in order to get paid.

Here's a guy with his dog in the middle of the day on a voting day, brazenly going up to the ballot box, pulling a wad of ballets out from his bag, then stuffing them in, still holding them with one hand as he takes a photo with the other.

They have countless examples of this.

And remember, the videos they have correspond ONLY to people who satisfied the criterion that the cell phone they had with them was tracked at 10 or more ballot boxes and they visited 5 or more not-for-profit offices in the month leading up to the election.

So even if you tell me all those people above had some business dropping off those ballots, remember they visited at least 10 ballot boxes and visited not-for-profits as well. So whatever their reasons (e.g., "just helping out at the old-folks home") that's still illegal, period.

Based on some data they have of the number of ballots dropped off only by mules, and by the geo-location data with that strict 10/5 criteria, they determined averages as follows across the swing states:

If these were all for Biden, was this enough to overturn the election? They looked at the data state-by-state, and in some states it was enough, in others it was not, but this was the final tally of the electoral votes:

So Trump would have likely won without these illegal ballots being cast.

And this is ONLY using the very strict criterion. There were drop-boxes not covered, they did not cover post-offices where ballots could be dropped as well, and the 10/5 sort of eliminates all possibility of false positives.

They redid the calculation using a less strict criteria of only 5 ballot boxes and got this result overall:

And this would have been the electoral college result:

The documentary also features several whistleblowers who explain what they were paid to do and how the system worked.

It started with COVID of course, and then a clever Democrat lawyer named Mark Elias who went around all the states trying to get mass-mail-in ballots and dropboxes approved by the typically Dem-appointed courts. Also worked to laxen signature and ID requirements in the name of "efficiency" and helping presumably poor illiterate blacks to vote (???). All things the Dems subsequently tried to ram through in their "election reform" bill. What a joke. Mind you, all that was pretty much unconstitutional already as the state legislatures need to approve anything along those lines, and many did not. This is all being re-worked out now for the next go-round with the Republicans a bit more on-the-ball this time. But they systematically setup all the pre-requisites so that this ballot harvesting, already a Dem go-to move, could be bigger and better than ever.

There was then lots of money flowed in from organizations friendly to the left, the biggest of which was Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook who put $450M into "get out the vote" campaigns exclusively targeting urban inner cities which are very heavily Democrat. There's a dispute whether that is illegal or not, as the law says anything like that not declared as part of a campaign, must be even-handed, and this surely was not based on locations targeted (though not based on the messaging which was just "go and vote", not for any particular candidate). But if not found illegal under the law, certainly feels unethical.

All this money flowed to these not-for-profits. They paid people to collect up ballots and drop them off at their offices. Sources included nursing homes, homeless people, stealing them from mailboxes, stealing them from appartment complexes and filling them in themselves, requesting ballots be sent to a different address for people who have not voted for a while, and so on. They offered a no questions asked payment for collected ballots.

Then they paid these mules to pick up the collected ballots from the not-for-profit locations and discretely drop them off a few at a time, and paid them for doing that, again no questions asked.

There were lots of people, especially Democrat leaning inner city people, more than willing to make a few bucks while helping to get the Orange Man out of office at only a tiny risk to themselves.

Based on this information, Georgia has finally opened up an investigation, but the other states are all dragging their feet and were quite obstructionist in releasing video.

The evidence does seem pretty compelling though. And this is only one aspect of potential illegal activity, but it alone would have been enough.

What do you guys think? Having doubts at all? Do you think we should be allowed to discuss it, or should it all be brutally censored (as is being done now to 2000 Mules) as a "threat to Democracy" to even discuss it?

P.S. here's a good free review with key clips if you want to watch it easier.


  1. So tired of your ridiculous Republican conspiracy theories! He Lost!! Accept it! Your next column will probably be about the Patriots who just wanted to visit the Capital on Jan 6th. So sad!

    1. Indeed. The advice given to Richard Nixon when he lost to JFK in an equally dodgy election was, "they stole it fair'n'square. We'll get 'em next time."

      Of course there was violence on Jan 6, NOTHING compared to the BLM riots, but still waiting for anything more than a mischief-type charge, or a ridiculous "insurrection" charge. Already seen a bunch of full acquittals as the judge rules they were invited in by capitol police based on video evidence. Most of the Jan 6 people, held for well over a year in prison pending trial, are political prisoners of the regime. Nancy Pelosi gas still not answered why she rejected calls from Trump, in advance of the rally, to deploy more security. But we know the answer to that.

    2. I am not one to care about people posting or having an opinion about the Big Lie on the Trump side of the world. It’s good discourse and one that puts all the cards on the table and reasonable people can make their own choices on what to believe.
      I am also not one who thinks that the discourse should be relegated to certain blogs. Spankos have been proven to be some of the most educated factions of the populace. However it does not mean it is diverse because the spanking community is also one of the least diverse communities and racism and bigotry runs pretty deep. But that being said here are my thoughts on some of what you claim to be facts.
      And no doubt you can dig up counter arguments. Your right, your blog.
      Trump Claims of phone call to Pelosi Fact Checked as lie
      Conflating BLM demonstrations with the capital riots is ridiculous. But it is an effective ploy by the right, particularly extreme conservatives to dog whistle into existence racial divisiveness. There was no question asinine looting in some demonstrations, not by the peaceful BLM demonstrators but those not associated with the BLM demonstrations. And the extended non connected encounters were largely conducted by Whites who again, were not connected to the BLM movement directly.
      As of January 2022 Sentencing for insurrectionist
      Insurrectionist found not guilty because the Police let them in and was a Trump appointed Judge. And he was acquitted because the Judged deemed his actions when compared to the overwhelming violent mob to be inconsequential.

    3. Whether Trump called or not is irrelevant. Pelosi knew the numbers on the way and did nothing to increase security.

      "Fiery but mostly peaceful"

      And yet that guy was held without trial in dreadful conditions and without bail (for TRESPASSING accusation), for how long now?

    4. I was going to respond in more detail, but...I'll just leave the mic where it is.

    5. I don't mind more discussion. I directly addressed the points you raised, you are now free to do the same.

  2. Who cares Julie? The media wants us to pick team Trump or team Biden but they are the same geriatric losers who don't care about us. Rich people will get richer, our living standards will decrease, and they will use culture wars to try and make normal people hate each other. The USA has more or less the same immigration policy under Biden and Trump--they're both all talk.

    I see older people fret about our 'precious democracy', but I am 32 and see no real effort to make life better for anyone. It's all just a waste of time getting angry about it.

    1. The reason they cheated so hard, and that establishment Republicans refuse to do anything about it, is exactly the war you are talking about. Trump was an outsider bringing change, and the entrenched class could not have that.

    2. Trump is no different. He did jack shit to help ordinary people and Biden does jack shit to help ordinary people.

      I'm not even mad about it. They probably all lie and cheat. That's just what the USA is in 2022. Maybe the boomers remember a great country but I don't.

      The only thing I mind is that I can't just sell my vote. If the whole thing is corrupt as fuck at least let me be corrupt too.

    3. I think Trump was different. He was not in it for the money, and he was a successful businessman so had skills. Pre panda Emil, his policies got the economy humming, which made everybody's lives better, but especially the poorest amongst us.

    4. Trump was just the same Julie. Poor people are still poor, and the rich keep the economic gains for themselves. They own all the stock anyway.

      D or R, it just doesn’t matter. Good for those who can make a buck out of cheating on the election. If democracy is trash, corrupt capitalism can always be counted on to provide opportunities.

    5. Economy, Abraham accords, ending foreign wars and no new wars. Nah, Trump was better.

  3. The Democrats are quite adept at stuffing ballots to win an election and have gotten away with it for decades as it is almost impossible to prove, as we have discovered with the 2020 ebacle.
    One sign is a delay in counting or problems observing or accessing the ballot boxes , which is also something we seen in 2020 in some Democrat controlled states.
    As one prominent Democrat once bragged "The key is to own the ballotboxes . Once you have them it is impossible forr an opponent to prove an election was rigged!"
    I doubt if we will ever get the real story of what happened in 2020 but the number of votes themselves made no sense.

    1. The evidence presented in this documentary is helpful in shedding light. The genius of it was that the crimes were so small and so distributed that you can't ever bring a big case despite the big swing in the result.

  4. Maybe I’ll have to watch this, but I just don’t believe so many people can be involved in a conspiracy without a lot of beans being spilled. That’s not to say there is zero election fraud - I assume there’s been fraud on both sides for centuries.

    As for your response to a commenter that the BLM riots had more violence than Jan 6, let’s be clear that there was a lot of unacceptable behavior in both. Both also included a lot of folks engaged in legitimate protest. But Trump encouraged a mob to disrupt Congress and prevent it from doing its job - an unprecedented egomaniacal attempt at tyranny. He’s not wrong about everything (as many of my friends assert), but he has no respect for our democracy. I don’t like Biden, but I’d vote for him a million times before taking Trump back.


    1. There's plenty of whistle blowing, but it is illegal so nobody is going to just publicly come forwards. But it's also very distributed. Just fund all these "get out the vote" orgs in Democrat parts of swing states, and then let the profit motive take over, combine with "Trump is literally Hitler" mindset, and it's ok to cheat a bit to keep literally Hitler out of office (and make a few bucks).

      Your statement that Trump encouraged a mob to storm the capital has no evidence, whereas Democrat politicians did PLENTY to encourage, or at least tacitly approve, of BLM violence (e.g. Kamala shilling for an org that bails offenders out to reoffend at next nights riots, or Pelosi, when asked to condemn, saying "there is a lot of passion"). Repeat now with Roe v Wade and these hooligans illegally targeting the homes of Supreme Court justices, and Antifa already showing up and being violent, and not a word from the Dems.

    2. I hate targeting homes (by either side). We just had a bunch of truckers come into our (Oakland CA) neighborhood to protest at our Assembly Member's house. No real threat of violence, but still should not be permitted in my view.

      Yes many Democratic politicians are morons. But no one as scary as Trump has ascended to the White House. You may disagree and Trump did keep us out of war during his tenure, but I believe he cares more about his ego than stopping nuclear war.

      I am so glad Trump is no longer president. I hope we can find a leader who can bring people back together.

      Note of course that courts across the country dismissed lawsuit after lawsuit alleging election fraud.


    3. I don't objectively see why you think Trump was so scary. You have a full four year term where you can assess his policies and actions. What concrete policies or actions were "scary" in your opinion? Do something other than rigged election as we've done that to death and likely will have to disagree on that.

    4. I’ll start with this example.

      Here’s someone else, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who agreed with me. Someone with far more experience and responsibility in these matters than either of us.


      My greatest fear during the Trump presidency was echoed by the Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff and the People's Republic of China - that Trump was unstable or egocentric enough to start a nuclear war.

      See AP Article below.

      Top general feared Trump would launch nuke attack
      By Jonathan Lemire

      Susan Walsh / Associated Press

      Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told his counterpart in China U.S. would not strike.

      WASHINGTON — Fearful of Donald Trump’s actions in his final weeks as president, the United States’ top military officer twice assured his Chinese counterpart that the two nations would not go to war, a senior defense official said Tuesday after the conversations were described in excerpts from a forthcoming book.

      Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army that the United States would not strike. One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that defeated Trump. The second call was on Jan. 8, 2021, just two days after the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by supporters of the outgoing chief executive.

      Trump said Milley should be tried for treason if the report was true.
      Milley went so far as to promise Li that he would warn his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, according to the book “Peril,” written by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. Details from the book, which is set to be released next week, were first reported by The Washington Post on Tuesday.
      “General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him in the first call, according to the book. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”

      Milley believed the president suffered a mental decline after the election, agreeing with a view shared by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a phone call they had Jan. 8, according to officials.
      Pelosi had previously said she spoke to Milley that day about “available precautions” to prevent Trump from initiating military action or ordering a nuclear launch, and she told colleagues she was given unspecified assurances that there were long-standing safeguards in place.

      Milley, according to the book, called the admiral overseeing the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the military unit responsible for Asia and the Pacific region, and recommended postponing upcoming military exercises. He also asked senior officers to swear an “oath” that Milley had to be involved if Trump gave an order to launch nuclear weapons, according to the book.

      Trump responded with a sharply worded statement dismissing Milley as a “dumbass” and insisting he never considered attacking China.

      Still, he said that if the report was true, “I assume he would be tried for TREASON in that he would have been dealing with his Chinese counterpart behind the President’s back and telling China that he would be giving them notification ‘of an attack.’ Can’t do that!”
      The book also offers new insights into Trump’s efforts to hold on to power despite losing the election to Democrat Joe Biden.

      Trump repeatedly pressed his vice president, Mike Pence, to refuse to certify the election results at the Capitol on Jan. 6, the event that was later interrupted by the mob.

      “I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this,” Trump replied, according to the book, later telling his vice president, “You’ve betrayed us. I made you. You were nothing.”
      Jonathan Lemire is an Associated Press writer.

    5. Your first example is of Trump not attacking China and a traitorous general. I fail to see how that puts Trump in a bad light. The general yes.

      Your second example is about urging Pence and others to not certify an election result he considered was fraudulent. Is that not the Constitutional way to go about it? If not, what is? Democrats as well, in 2016, had members of Congress cast votes to not certify the election. Why the double standard?

      And as for the first example, your "smoking gun" is that Trump followed all laws and precedents and left office when his term was up in a peaceful and orderly transition of power. Again, fail to see how any of that puts Trump in a bad light.

    6. Give me a break. You call Mille “traitorous” because he followed common sense in doing what he had to avert a nuclear crisis (something that could lead to the death of every human being on the planet!).

      In a normal administration, the President would listen to the Joint Chiefs and other advisors on matters of this importance. I hope to god we never have anyone so arrogant in power again.

      I’m among those who see that Trump is sometimes right and sometimes not, but understand he’s totally unfit to lead.


    7. Julie darling, do you think that the post election audits and investigation initiated and paid for by Republicans , not counting the litigation filed , failed to notice this and just let it go instead spending millions on all the challenges found to be without merit ?

    8. Rosco:
      - There was no "nuclear crisis". This was fake news at the time and still is. A maneuver by Pelosi (one of many, such as Russian Collusion hoax, fine people hoax, ...) to lie about Trump to show in a bad light. Nobody believed it except the extreme TDS anti-Trumpers. There is now, with Russia, but not then.
      - He listens and decides. Is that not what a President should do. His instincts seem bang on. He calmed North Korea, calmed the middle east with the Abraham accords, defeated Isis when the generals seemingly couldn't, and started no new conflicts. What is there to criticize again now?

    9. Anonymous darling, the courts are the wrong place to do any of this except bring strict criminal charges against individuals, which requires massive resources and the political will of the DA's which is not forthcoming.

      The type of ballot harvesting illegality detailed in this movie is hard to catch, admittedly, which is why their methodology is so interesting and compelling.

    10. Calling something "fake news" reminds me of the Christian bumper sticker slogan "God said it, I believe it and that settles it." There is often a lot of faith involved when you pick one side.

      Mille is one of a very long list of long-term government employees who successfully served under different administrations. They saw Trump as serving his own interests and seriously deviating from the public interest.

      As I have said before, Trump is not always wrong. But his ego is more important to him than his country or the rest of the world for that matter. If he comes back to power, everybody's safety is at serious risk. I am sorry you don't understand the danger he poses.

      - Rosco

    11. Given that he was in power for four years and did not deviate from public interest, and made an orderly transition out at the end, despite folks like you warning us from 2015 on that he would be a dictator and on and on and on, you are not credible when you make this claim about "what he would do" after its already proven he wouldn't. I am sorry you don't understand this straightforward concept.

    12. I am concerned about nuclear war (I know we all are, but I seem to worry about it more than most as it is the worst thing we could do to ourselves). If Trump starts one, I may not be around to tell you "I told you so", even if I were so inclined. It's not a mistake that one can make and expect to learn from.

      I am pleased that we survived the Trump presidency. I disagreed with him on much, agreed on some and couldn't stand his arrogance and disrespect. But above all that as I have mentioned, I believe his ego could get us all killed.

      I also think he was pretty ineffective about his agenda. The Rs had Congress for two years and passed one major bill on taxes.

      The view that he didn't start a nuclear war last time so he won't do so next time gives me no solace. I see Trump as competent in some ways but lunatic in others. I fear he will return to power (especially given Biden & Harris aren't doing well and the economy is suffering).

      I have successfully persuaded some people not to vote for Trump, and I usually just try to work on folks I have a chance of convincing. And you're Canadian, anyway, so why am I bothering? I guess because I have been reading your great blog since its inception.

      I wish you well, and I wish Trump well (in retirement).


    13. We are close to nuclear war now than we ever have been before during my lifetime due to Biden's idiotic foreign policy concerning Ukraine, and you're concerned about Trump?????

      I really don't see how you've been successful convincing anybody not to vote for Trump as you bring no facts to the discussion, only your feelings with a healthy dose of proven hoaxes thrown in.

      Most of my audience is US based, so we are not trying to convince one another, we are having this discussion for the sake of the undecideds who peruse the blog.

  5. I appreciate the work D’Souza did on this film, but really all that’s required is a thought experiment. 1. Is there incentive to cheat? 2. Is it possible? 3. Is the likelihood of getting caught and/or face consequences low? A fair assessment of these questions concludes that, of course, cheating occurs in EVERY election of any consequence. So the question is: How much cheating and who’s better at it? Why do you think Hillary lost her shit and started throwing things when she lost? Was she assured their mules had it covered? But what about THIS election? Our votes never were truly auditable, but illegal changes to the process during COVID made them even less so. Then there is the obviously mentally diminished candidate who DID NOT CAMPAIGN, but somehow got 81 MILLION votes. Sure. If that passes your smell test, your nose is broken. Perhaps most disturbing of all is the unwillingness of news media to even investigate this story, allowing partisan “fact checkers” to make it disappear. There’s a lot of closed eyes and stopped ears, pretending all is well, because once the people realize and admit that we KNOW we don’t have fair elections (or a border), we don’t have a republic, or even a country. We have a big piece of land with a small ruling class and a lot of serfs. - david

    1. Biden didn't need to campaign. Trump campaigned for him.

    2. It is true that the strategic anybody but Trump vote went to Biden, and there were lots of those.

  6. Ok, so what you're saying is that none of these 'facts' were picked up and used by the Trump team itself in the 63 lawsuits they filed, and lost, after the election? Got it...

    1. Oh my gosh, you're still on that debunked fake news talking point? In fact, none of those went to trial where evidence could be presented. The judges ruled pre-trial they did not have jurisdiction or remedy, right up to the Supreme Court.

      And then, by the nature of the scam, you can only laboriously go after the mules one at a time. With no political will to do that, all-time high crime where this took place, defunded understaffed police forces, and all Dem controlled cities and DAs, nothing will happen.

  7. You are such an shill for Trump

    Use your brain!

    You really think that only Democrats would do stuff like this? You must be kidding.

    And if it were true, then PROVE just ONE case


    almost the illegal voting that has been proven is on the Republican side, and it's minimal

    USE YOUR BRAIN, you shill

    1. I'm looking at the geo-spatial and video evidence presented. It's compelling and I await any reasonable rebuttal of it. USE YOUR BRAIN.

  8. I used to think I would connect to all other spanko-philes

    I now see that the spanking community is just as diverse as the rest of the population

    I find you to be the most selfish self-righteous writer I have ever encountered. You are almost bad enough for me to want to give up spanking. I don't want to be associated with a community where you are a prominent voice.

    1. Ha ha! How do you get to "selfish and self-righteous" based on me summarizing a documentary I just saw that provides concrete evidence? You seem overly emotional to me on these political discussions, best you avoid them.

    2. Your summary of the "documentary" is irrelevant. All we need to do is scan your answers to your readers to see exactly how close-minded and self-righteous you are.

    3. Since you raise zero new and interesting points, and cannot seem to at all refute any of my points, I accept your surrender with good grace.

  9. If it could be done, then Trump would have done it. How do you even know who the votes were for?

    1. They were in heavily Dem dominated districts and the not-for-profits were all left wing affiliated. Use your common sense.

  10. I am off this afternoon to get a sound bare-bottom caning from my disciplinarian (who is somewhat ruthless), and I was hoping to get some inspiration, something to give me a big boner, so that I can weather the beating.

    But I got this tripe instead.

    oh well. My beating will hurt even more.


    1. Empty your balls before and it will be even worse!

  11. Some people are so far behind in the race, they actually believe they're leading.

  12. Any time election laws are changed at the last minute over some perceived pandemic, (in an effort to make us all safe) and we see the things we did, wild vote swings after ten at night, those votes going almost 100% to Biden one has to be leery. The left celebrating this victory will never accept the massive vote fraud. Drive down Kensington Ave in Philadelphia and I bet every one of the street zombies voted in this election. Go to any major city in a swing state and you will find the same zombies voting. (yeah right..they couldnt put down their heroin spoon long enough to fill out the ballot. Too many ballots with only a vote for President and non down ticket. It stinks and we all know that nothing is going to be done. Every time voting laws are introduced to prevent fraud, the left screams about voter suppression.

  13. I'm glad that you're in Canada and the worst you can do is vote for Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau's right wing competitors. I generally think of Canadians as being more can than US people, but there are, obviously, exceptions to this generalization.

    There's the masochism of pulling down your panties, bending over David's knee and getting spanked until you're crying.

    Then there's the masochism of posting about how you watched a Dinesh D'Sousa "documentary" about how Trump actually won the 2020 election. The latter is guaranteed to get you lots of abuse and, in my view, is not nearly as fun as getting a spanking. But then you must enjoy this abuse because you keep doing it.

    1. What I watched was a presentation of evidence. You should too, and not bury your head in the sand. I await the rebuttal, but no credible one yet...

  14. Yet another insane bit of Trump bullshit. You see people putting ballots in deposit boxes. I think they are Republican ballot box stuffers. LOL This is the same sort of insane bullshit Trump pushed to claim Obama wasn't born in the USA. Cell phone tracking? Really? Exactly how do you think the so-called documentary got this data? It is useless and fake. GPS tracking of individual cell phones isn't captured or saved unless someone needs the data at the time the event occurred. Here in the USA (where you DON'T live), getting tracking data on a phone requires a court order. The mobile phone companies don't record where we walk.

    Here are the problems with the propaganda you keep spewing out:
    1. Cell phone GPS tracking data isn't preserved by anyone.
    2. The so-called videos of people putting multiple ballots in a drop box isn't evidence of anything. Here in the USA, it is perfectly legal for me to drop off a family member's ballot, a neighbor's ballot, etc.
    3. Simply putting ballots in a drop box isn't evidence of who the ballots are for.
    4. If this stuff were true, don't you think the FBI would be involved.

    Most important, your dissemination of this propaganda is foreign interference in the American elections. Isn't there enough interesting stuff in Canada to keep you occupied? Why do you feel the need to try to interfere with our government?

    1. Anonymous geospatial does not require a court order and is gathered, brokered, and purchased for all sorts of purposes.

      In some of the states putting in more than your own (or someone you have a PoA for) is illegal. In others, only close family. But I agree, you need to combine with the geospatial to see the problem.

      Given the not for profits in question were all left-wing aligned, and the dramatic vote swings towards Biden when those ballot boxes were counted, that's not a big stretch to say it was for Biden.

      FBI involved? No. Isn't it a state matter? And with fervent Dems at the helm, and a completely compromised management layer in the FBI who illegally perpetrated the Russian collusion hoax, no, not so much.

      There you go calling for censorship again. Labelling concrete evidence you disagree with as foreign propaganda interfering with your election shows your desire to suppress discussion. It's not a good look.

    2. Here's an article speaking about Trump admin buying such data for ICE.

      Many apps collect it and send it back. How do you think those traffic apps tell if a road is busy or not?

    3. I agree that you can obtain location but I'm not sure I've seen the ability to track an individual phone through a day. I suppose it's possible. The problem remains that you can't know if the phone you are tracking belongs to a Democrat or Republican. Also, it's unnecessary to put multiple ballots in a box if the purpose is to um..stuff a ballot box. All you have to do is mail the ballots. Undetectable that way.

      The FBI does investigate election fraud in a federal election. Election security has nothing to do with who puts ballots in a collection box. It's based on the creation and distribution of the ballots. We have had our elections by mail for years. We have no in-person voting. Each ballot is individually printed. I have to sign the envelope I return it in. My signature is compared to the one on file when I registered. One year, I got a letter saying my signature didn't match well enough. I had to provide proof of who I am and give a new signature before my vote was counted.

      There is so much wrong with what you are defending. It isn't possible to create ballots and then stuff them in the collection boxes. Each ballot is tracked. In fact, here in Washington I can go to a web site and follow my ballot. Here we are two years after the election and morons are still trying to invent ways to discredit our election. By the way, Obama was born in the United States.

    4. Yes, likely more of it happens by mail than by dropboxes, so if anything their estimates are under.

      States vary wildly on election practices, and even districts. We're talking about heavily Dem-controlled districts in swing states. You're absolutely right you cannot definitely prove the ballots were cast for Biden, and that's because the system makes that unauditable by separating the outer envelope with the identity info from the inner ballot. That's not a good thing from an audit standpoint. Regardless, these ballots were illegally cast, and if in sufficient number, which seems to be demonstrated here, calls into question the integrity of the election. I say fix it! More states should adopt the tight sort of controls you have in your state, or we have in Canada.

      There is no allegation that ballots were created out of thin air. There were many, many excess ballots from people on the voter roles who should not be that were mailed ballots without requesting them. Then there are homeless ballots, old age home ballots, scooped up ballots, and ballots requested for person A by a bad actor (because person A tends not to vote). Many voters reported being told they already voted when they arrived at the polls when they had not.

      What is illegal is ballot harvesting, which is gathering up a bunch of ballots from people and dropping them off when you are not entitled to do so. That is one of the main things being pointed to by the evidence collected.

      Signature verification was tuned way down or turned off entirely in the name of COVID.

      I think we are sayig the same. Your state seems to have good controls. Canada has good controls. Now let's make sure those same good controls are in place in these Democrat districts of swing states especially.

  15. Does it go on to explain how all those "illegal" votes were counted? When counting they don't just count up every ballot that walks in the door. Election workers validate names and signatures on every ballot against voter registration. Elections officials are called in to double check and discrepancies. How many people on the inside would it take to "cover up" that many votes? You might also want to read the results of the Republican led investigation in AZ. The one after the Cyber Ninja fiasco. They claim to have found a lot of fraud. 9 prosecutable offenses in total. I've yet to see solid proof of the kind of fraud Trump and Co claim.

    1. Signature verification was drastically toned down with historic low rejection rates when they should have been historically high given mass mail-in.

      I mention in a reply above why I doubt these cheats will ever be prosecuted. Good to know what went on to better guard against it next time around.

    2. But the thing is your still saying that 10s or maybe even hundreds of thousands of ballots hundreds of hands checking them and yet no proof? How many people would have to be involved? And yet no one saw anything? My favorite "proof" offered by one of his people said a particular county in MI hasn't voted Democrat since 1892. So that's proof of what? Keep spankingn

    3. There's plenty of one off type proofs, like people in nursing homes incapable of voting who were found to have voted for Biden. Problem is, all the states have avoided the lengthy, expensive, time consuming signature and eligibility audits, not least because it still would not indicate which way the fraudulent ballot voted. That audit flaw is built into the system to make cheating almost inevitable. Fix it!

  16. You'll find this quite interesting

    Unless of course you buy into the narrative that the Mercury News is also in on the plot

    1. That was very similar to the debunk I read before I saw the evidence presented. I think there is a common source for these "news" articles. Their main point is that the geolocation data is not sufficiently accurate to say for sure they were standing in front of the Dropbox. Given the overall patterns, I find that argument lacking.

    2. Is it not conceivable that more people in American wanted Biden as president than Trump?

      Clinton won the popular vote in 2016, so why is it so strange that Biden would win

      Also the fact that no one has actually come up with any hard evidence that would stand up in a court of law should tell you something

    3. Yes conceivable, but seems unlikely given things like rally attendance, a massive enthusiasm gap, and the fact that Joe hardly campaigned at all, and that Trump got 10M more votes than 2016. But yes, an "anyone but Trump" strategic vote is possible.

      Dems will always win popular vote because their base are the cities.

      You are literally reading a blog giving hard evidence. Fact is, courts have not taken this up, so they have not ruled either way on what evidence was presented. They disqualified themselves for reason of jurisdiction or lack of a feasible remedy. They did not look at evidence. They did not progress to that stage.

    4. Rally attendance? In a pandemic?
      Only trumpers and the stupid were at rallies.
      Biden didn't have to campaign -- all he had to do was not be trump.
      There is no "hard evidence" in that film.
      You've been duped, because you want to be duped.

    5. The videos look pretty damned convincing to me. Combine it with the geolocation data and you have what I would call good evidence, at any rate. Enough to convict beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Enough to get Republicans off their asses and fight to keep election procedures less susceptible to fraud, I hope so.

    6. Lets just take your comments one by one

      1) Hard evidence is not a documentary that has some very questionable information

      2) The courts threw out the vast majority of the cases due to the fact that was no legal basis to them

      3)You're basing your argument that Trump held rallies and therefore he must have won? Perhaps the Biden camp saw there was a pandemic and decided to take the safer approach

      Like all good pro Trumpers, you only look at facts that back up your case

      You fail to mention that Trump told people not to use the postal votes (genius move) and therefore allowed the Democrats to use a perfectly legitimate way of getting their base to vote

      No doubt you'll say that too was rigged, but provide no evidence

      What is about Trump that makes you so sure that America wanted him as president?

      The rest of the world would love to know

    7. 1) it's evidence. It needs to be validated that it's not manufactured, of course, but so does all things we call evidence. e.g. "I have a witness who say you punched him." It's technically called "evidence" in a court of law, but we still need to check if the guy is lying.

      2) yes, exactly. They did not look at the evidence, the looked to see if they had jurisdiction and if they could apply a remedy. All this exercise says is that the courts are the wrong place to seek a remedy to election fraud. Constitutionally, Congress is the right place, but you object to that (only when the Republicans did it in 2020, not when the Dems did it in 2016).

      3) I am not basing my argument on that. It's an indicator of enthusiasm level. In fact, I am not even arguing that Trump would have won absent fraud. I say we don't know because the design of the system, especially in 2020, is inherently unauditable. I note that it's the Dems who moved to make it so and drag their feet on fixing it (e.g., voter id, required in most democratic countries, for some reason is "racist!" in the US according to Dems???). So that's fishy and consistent with them benefiting from the lack of controls and auditability, but not proof of anything.

      Here is a list of Trump Administration Accomplishments. Not the least of which is not starting any new wars, which Biden is failing miserably at.

  17. affirmation versus information - it is what it is. The end result is the greatest democracy in the world is being effectively dismantled by it's own people. Pick any side you want election integrity and the ability to vote is being challenged.

    1. Is the ability to vote really being challenged? The ability to have your vote count certainly is.

  18. I used to be thrilled when you put up a new post. The accounts of
    your adventures were stimulating and exciting. Now, you have
    become a repetitive bore - - trying to be an edgy, insightful, free-
    thinking, fearless commentator.
    There are thousands of political sites from the extreme left to the
    far right which can be accessed at will.
    Stick to what you know - - Stay in your own lane & write about the
    kinky stuff. If you care so much, start a new, separate blog where
    you can vent and your cut & paste exercise in 'journalism'

    1. It's easy enough to tell the political posts from the sexy posts, just skip the political ones.

      The fact is, you seem to be either not able to tolerate viewpoints that differ from your own, or perhaps not tolerate a woman who thinks.

      From observation, it seems to be a characteristic of the left (not everybody, of course, but a goodly number) of despising people with views that differ from their own, and thus being unable to engage with them at any level.

    2. I did NOT say that I disagree with the premise of your
      post, and I most certainly do not care if it is written by a
      male or female. You have a knee-jerk standard response
      to anybody who dares to offer any criticism about your work.
      You call them Lefties and other insulting names.
      It's your blog, so you always get the last word.
      Again, as a right-wing, Trump voting, full-blown MAGA,
      I honestly don't know what you are trying to prove?

    3. Sorry, I jumped to that conclusion. So now I'm even more confused by your comment. I'm not "trying" to be anything. I write about what interests me. I saw a documentary that finally had some evidence of what we suspected, so I was excited to summarize it. You read too much into it.

  19. Yeah Dinesh D'Souza. The convicted conspiracy theorist fraudster. lol. Let's all believe his trashy documentary. I almost took this post seriously before I found out it is by Dinesh fucking D'Souza.

    God, sometimes I am ashamed of my fellow Indian countrymen.

    1. I looked into his conviction. He admitted he over-donated by some small amount using a friend's name to do so. He's practically the only guy ever thrown in prison for it! A very political hit job.

      Have you any substantial criticisms of him? He's certainly bringing the receipts on this documentary, reporting on TrueTheVote investigations.

    2. He is a bigot who has made a lucrative career of bootlicking white conservatives and validating their feelings because he has outsider status anxiety. And it is a great job choice these days. People will pay you a lot of money for you to tell them that their odious feelings are really okay.

      Trust me, I know plenty of Indians like him. They are so desperate to be liked and approved by white conservatives (and in my opinion are desperate to be seen as "white" themselves), that they often throw their own people under the bus, talk trash about India (even though there are a lot of things about India, worth talking trash about), and support every political and social position that these conservatives support, in an attempt to "fit in".

      He is just really a lying, pathetic, troll. He really shouldn't be a source for you as he is really just playing you (you meaning, white conservatives in general) as much as he is throwing my community under the bus.

    3. Ok, so no substantial criticisms of his policies or actions. That's what I typically get when I ask that question.

      If you want to refresh your memory as to his actions, I've collected his Accomplishments on this page: Trump Administration Accomplishments.

    4. I dont really care about Trump. I am not even concerned about the article on election fraud. My comment is directed towards Dinesh. But it is kind of difficult for a Canadian like you to understand where am coming from. This is a very Indian thing that most Indians would understand.

    5. What, is it a caste thing? Why do you have this poor impression of him?

    6. No caste has nothing to do with it. Caste is just social stratification based on vocation (instead of skin color). Its complicated, but Dinesh is sort of like Samuel L Jackson's character in Django Unchained.

    7. Which part confused you? Samuel L Jackson or Caste?

      I'll explain both.

      In old times, society was divided into 4 classes - Brahmins (Priests, scholars), Kshatriyas (rulers, warriors, generals), Vaishyas (traders, merchants, farmers) and Shudras (labourers). People born in one of these classes, couldn't expect to become anything else - a shudra couldnt ever become a warrior.

      Later a new system of Jati came about, not sure when. There are thousands of Jatis. These lack clear definition of who they are and what they do. A person from a Jati could be anything - they could work at a government office, they could be a scientist, they could be a labourer etc., In the 18th, 19th and upto the mid 20th centuries, people of a Jati married only within their Jati (this happens even today), there was the practice of untouchability (essentially segregation) and other social evils. Eventually when India formed in 1947, they immediately abolished this and set up affirmative action based on caste.

      So anyway nothing to do with Dinesh.

      Dinesh on the other hand, belongs to a certain group of Indians who are generally ashamed of their heritage. They therefore try to run away from it, by trying to fit in to another group. Now adopting another culture is not bad (I moved away from India and immigrated to Canada for cultural reasons too), but Dinesh does it by bootlicking white conservatives and adopting an anti-black, anti-muslim, anti-immigrant attitude, even though he is brown and an immigrant. Even Gandhi had this sort of attitude if you google about what he said about black people. Therefore his intentions are suspect and not genuine. He says things that are agreeable to white conservatives, but he is not sincere in what he says. He is really just a man with low self esteem. Hence my comparison to Samuel L Jackson's character in Django Unchained.

    8. I was referring to the Jackson part as it applied to Dinesh, but I learned more about the caste system, so thank you!

      I just listen to what Dinesh says and don't see any outward evidence of what you say. At any rate, it's not a good reason to discount the facts he is presenting which were pulled together by TrueTheVote. If he's "sucking up" by exposing true but complex things in a more consumable fashion for the public, I'm okay with that.

  20. Trump won the vote! Thanks Julie! Love ya from the USA!

    1. But it's water under the bridge. Hopefully it's a wake up call to Americans to not let it happen again.

  21. I'm just here for the comments


  22. I have found D’Souza and True The Vote to be credible in the past. I have no reason to find fault with their methods in this instance. Ballot harvesting was developed for fraud.

    1. Seems sound to me, provided they are not lying, but if so, I imagine the debunks would ecpxoose that, so still waiting to hear a thoughtful rebuttal that takes all the points made into consideration.

    2. CLAIM: In Philadelphia alone, True the Vote identified 1,155 “mules” who illegally collected and dropped off ballots for money.

      THE FACTS: No, it didn’t. The group hasn’t offered any evidence of any sort of paid ballot harvesting scheme in Philadelphia. And True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone location data, its researcher Gregg Phillips said in March in testimony to Pennsylvania state senators.

      Pennsylvania state Sen. Sharif Street, who was there for the group’s testimony in March, told the AP he was confident he was counted as several of the group’s 1,155 anonymous “mules,” even though he didn’t deposit anything into a drop box in that time period.

      Street said he based his assessment on the fact that he carries a cellphone, a watch with a cellular connection, a tablet with a cellular connection and a mobile hotspot — four devices whose locations can be tracked by private companies. He also said he typically travels with a staffer who carries two devices, bringing the total on his person to six.

      During the 2020 election season, Street said, he brought those devices on trips to nonprofit offices and drop box rallies. He also drove by one drop box up to seven or eight times a day when traveling between his two political offices.

      “I did no ballot stuffing, but over the course of time, I literally probably account for hundreds and hundreds of their unique visits, even though I’m a single actor in a single vehicle moving back and forth in my ordinary course of business,” Street said.

      City election commission spokesman Nick Custodio said the allegations matched others that had been debunked or disproven after the 2020 election.

      “The Trump campaign and others filed an unprecedented litany of cases challenging Philadelphia’s election with dubious and unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, all of which were quickly and resoundingly rejected by both state and federal courts,” Custodio said.

    3. Why didn't they get the surveillance video from Philly? By law it was required to be taken, and by law to be examined by the public. So why was it not provided? That's not a good reason to doubt their conclusions. It bolsters them. Someone has something to hide, clearly.

      If he stopped at 10 ballot boxes, and 5 not for profits associated with leftist get the vote out not for profits, then yes, he and all his little cellphones would get picked up. But, the video evidence, where made available, shows a very different story than that.

  23. Hey Julie - - What are you going to treat us all to next, a rant
    about abortion? Maybe human-trafficking? Maybe the abuses
    prevalent in animal farms? I'm sure you will find some shady
    source to back up an unpopular take on the issue, and then you
    can insult whoever dares to question your wisdom.

    1. Sensitive much? I already did abortion a bit in a RBG tribute blog. My view is that Roe pulled abortion as a constitutional right out of thin air by activist judges. Even RBG opposed the decision, arguing it was so weak that it could not stand, and removed any impetus for lawmakers to arrive at a compromise.

      What should the law be? Well the idiotic positions are the extremes at both ends. Many reasonable compromises can and should be made, such as Florida's law on it.

      Human trafficking is bad. Wonder why none of Epstein's customers are being prosecuted. Hmmmm.

      Animal farms. Don't like the cruelty, but like the good eating. I'm torn.

  24. This video was so retarded, Tucker Carlson even refused to talk about it or have Dinesh on his show. If it’s too extreme for Fucker, then you know it’s complete trash. Newsmax (news being used very lightly) even canceled having Dinesh on to talk about it. That tells you everything you need to know about this bullshit.

    1. Weird how so many people seem to need validation from their news show hosts. I watched the thing, it seems plausible, I have not seen any good rebuttal, so I await that. You have certainly not provided any rebuttal.

      For now, I conditionally say it looks legit. I don't care what the mainstream media has to say about it, left or right. Establishment conservatives were totally complicit in allowing it to happen and not calling for investigations afterwards. They are certainly not to be trusted regarding this subject.

    2. "Establishment conservatives were totally complicit in allowing it to happen and not calling for investigations afterwards. They are certainly not to be trusted regarding this subject."

      Oh, ffs. "Establishment conservatives" would have ejaculated down both legs if they even thought that this was plausible.
      The reason they don't talk about it is because it's so bat-shit crazy that they know no one with half a brain would buy it.

    3. Your comment does not make a lot of sense.

      My point is the Republicans have an establishment contigent equally eager to keep America First Republicans out. They are getting primaries all over the place as I write this.

    4. My comment makes perfect sense.
      I was quoting you claiming that republicans ignored actual fraud because they don't like trump. That's absurd. Trump has taken over the party.
      They forgot their morals and spines years ago.
      All they do now is ask trump which hole he wants and "Please sir, can I swallow?"

    5. You don't seem to follow Republican politics much. As we speak there are massive battles in the primaries pitting "America First" Republicans, generally endorsed by Trump, against establishment Republicans. Looks like the establishment guys are losing, but they are still all over in entrenched seats of power, and some are real weasels, saying they back America First but then doing things contrary to that agenda (such as voting to send yet another $40B to "Ukraine"). The Georgia Governor and Secretary of State, Raffensberger, are prime examples of establishment Republicans against America First Republicans, and why it's been hard to get any legit and thorough election audits done there.

  25. I know that my mother in law got 4 ballots sent to her house. 2 were her and her husbands. The other 2 were the previous owner of the house where 1 was deceased and the other lived in another state. She did the right thing and threw the others away but hoe many didn’t. I wish we didn’t vote for people in general at all. I wish we voted for their beliefs and actual agenda they were pushing whichever candidate has that agenda or plans that the public votes for should win. It has become who you like and don’t like instead of who is actually good for the country. I appreciate all your posts I do prefer the Femdom a little more but if I don’t like something I simply skip over it. Love reading your posts and keep at it.

    1. That's a very common story. The voter roles are in very rough shape. You combine that with mass mail-in and incredibly lax or non-existent signature checks, and it's inviting large-scale fraud. You have to be an idiot to not see that. Most Democrats do not see that :-)

  26. @mattsheffield does a complete takedown of this on Twitter.

    1. He just links to the same supposed debunk, this time on AP (perhaps the source). That debunk is weak and reflects a flawed understanding of the evidence presented. He then claims there are fewer drop boxes than the film claims, but links to no evidence of that. Other than that he chucks rando insults at Dinesh, so not very credible.

    2. The only confirmed ballot harvesting that I know of was done by Republicans in North Carolina, but the film assumes this had to be Democrats (even though the film really proves nothing but conjecture).

    3. The film started with a confirmed case of ballot harvesting by Republicans. You would know that if you watched it.

  27. Julie,

    Just stop the nonsense. This show was gunned up by a pro-trump group that raises money to stop “illegal voting. Yet not one single legitimate source has shown that there was anything improper about the 2020 election. I don’t know about Canada, but in the US there needs to be clear and convincing evidence of fraud to overturn an election. Good grief, even the Arizona election which was reviewed by a pro-Trump company couldn’t find the votes. So far the only illegal votes have been by Trump supporters. Indeed, Mark. Meadows, his chief of staff likely voted illegally in North Carolina and is under investigation for it.

    FWIW, both sides regularly send people to collect absentee ballots from their supporters. It has gone on for decades.

    Beyond that, voter fraud is minuscule in the US. There are very few cases and almost all of them are the result of some error or other, either on the part of the voter or the voting official who misreads a name or makes some other error.

    Bottom line. Trump lost. The election wasn’t fixed, or illegal or anything else. My suggestion is stick to spanking and skip politics.

    1. The film explains the evidence of illegality. It's pretty clearcut, and there has yet to be a credible refutation. You do not address any of the points raised, just bring up Democrat talking points with no backing.

  28. All I can say is that the evidence is absolutely not "tremendous" . Interesting doc from a single sided documentary funded and filmed by an Interest group with anonymous "whistle blowers" . I'm a conservative but what Trump or at least the people the that pushed him have done to this country all in service to his ego is simply disgusting. He did some good things and he did some terrible things but he was pushing thus stolen election crap before the election because he knew he was losing and his ego could never take it. After saying all that I will say take yourself out of the echo chamber and don't be swayed by a sickly produces propaganda peice. It's possible these people believe this and in fact they probably do. But at the end of the day these claims have been investigated probably by people who voted for trump in all likelihood. Zero actionable evidence has been uncovered at all. This is fact. You can look at the tons of legal actions pursued to this very day. Brought before judges sympathetic to Trump in many cases.
    But at the end of the day let's say this is true which I don't believe to be the case. And also believe their pretty astronomical hypothesis on the numbers and then believe that it happened simultaneously in the three states needed. Then at worst it means that ballot harvesting laws which do not exist in many states were broken. Not that votes were created. And even then it wouldn't even begin to touch the popular vote count I. Which Biden killed his opponent. I didn't vote for either. I voted libertarian

    Just get some other information to balance this and keep an open mind. This is hurting our country. And 90% of it is bullshit

    1. I've read the supposed debunks of this evidence and they are unconvincing, I'm not sure what you mean by 'echo chamber" when I've literally heard the other side and found it unconvincing. Does everybody who does not believe what you do is in an "echo chamber"?

  29. "Does everybody who does not believe as you do ..." Of course, Julie! That's how it is. The same people who claim Trump was elected by the Russians in 2016, the George Jr. didn't win Florida in 2000, are the ones that whine if anyone has any 'conspiracy theories' about 2020, 'the most secure election ever' (which is the doublethink of double thinks there is no reason to believe at all that 2020 was anything other than a shitshow EVEN IF you take deliberate fraud out of the equation). It's laughable. A Pennsylvania court has already ruled that the changing of its ballet rules was done illegally - but of course that was after the election and hence the damage was already done! Also , the election was far closer than many people think just based on popular vote tallies. See, the vast majority of Bidens votes (legitimate or not) came from places like California, where the election wasn't really close. States in the heartland, on the other hand,we far,far, closer. To the extent that Trump would have won 3 states if a total of 43 THOUSAND votes had swung the other way. He would have picked up their electoral votes, Biden would have lost them, and Trump would still be President. That's right...43 THOUSAND votes, spread among three states was all it would take to screw Trump out of a victory. Anyone want to tell me that 43 thousand votes is too much for anyone to mess with or 'find' when you have a BRAND NEW SYSTEM of MILLIONS of MASS MAIL IN BALLOTS?

    In between the changes to access processes and laws due to the Pandemic "emergency" (many more of which over the next few years will be found to be ILLEGALLY MADE mind you), the fact that Republican observers were kept away from meaningful observation in places like Philadelphia, the fact that often people performing the "Audits" were often the same people who would be implicated if anything was found, I'd say anyone who truly believes we know for sure who won the 2020 election has a huge hole in their head.

    1. I totally agree with you, Clarence. Such a common sense position. The ones who scream "The Big Lie!" and "It was the fairest election of all times!" are truly cognitively impaired (or lying).

    2. Well regardless good thing deplorables like yourself lost the election Clarence. Now back under your rock and back to hating on non white immigrants!

    3. I've never seen Clarence make any racist remarks. If you're going to run your mouth like that on my blog, best back it up with some facts and references, boy.

    4. Boy is a racist reference to non white men. It isn't surprising you used that, given you are a racist as well.

      Clarence didn't want voting rights for non white immigrants who became citizens. Denying someone voting rights only to be treated as second class citizens, is racism 101. But of course you wont find that racist, because you are a racist as well, regardless of which way you try to spin it.

    5. I use "boy" in that context to humiliate a male. I would not use it on a black male, and if you are one, sorry. If you're not, then deal with it, boy.

      I'm not taking your word for anything Clarence says. Give me the link to where Clarence said that. If he did, I'll look at the context, and then give you my take.

    6. Apology accepted. Check the comment section on I think election fraud, the 1st article.

    7. "Clarence didn't want voting rights for non-white immigrants who became citizens". This is a lie. I have never used color or even sex as some sort of proxy to determine who gets to vote. This person is either deliberately lying or got me mixed up with someone else. On top of that, he called you a racist as well. This is probably someone who believes that only White People can be racist, which means they don't even agree on the definition of the term, which means they are not worth talking to.

    8. Anonymous: I am truly sorry. Would not have used that word had I known you were black. Should not use it at all when responding to people when I don't know they're white. At the risk of a bit of reverse racism, I think this white girl owes me some reparations across black massa's knee. :-)

    9. A large part of people believe that even if you believe in completely equal opportunity and complete mixing of the races, you can still somehow be "racist".

      They assume that if you are for immigration limits of any form, or against illegal immigration, it can only be "hidden racism". They assume that if you are for election integrity via voter ID, you must be motivated by "racism". That if you believe in self-determination, self-actualisation, personal responsibility, not govt handouts, it's because, you guessed it, "racism".

      It does make it hard to argue with them on these issues, because they enter the discussion with that attitude and they cannot be swayed.

      Leftist pull the same trick with women's issues, aboriginal issues, gay rights issues, and now trans issues as well.

      It's been programmed into them. It's certainly not our natural condition to think like that. Kids approach it more like me.

      And of course it's not to discount that there is real racism in the world, a bunch of it against whites also nowadays. But getting hard to continue any improvements there because the term "racism" has been so cheapened.

      I think everybody is worth talking to unless and until they totally melt down into a stream of uncontrolled invective (some do). They might have something to teach us. They certainly have something to learn. And others, on the fence, can observe the conversation and decide which side is making more sense.

    10. Julie, acknowledged and appreciate your apology.

      I understand where you are coming from. Yes people do think (unfortunately) that only white people are racist, or that every conservative position regarding limiting immigration or social assistance etc is driven by underlying racism. However it is also true that although people may not be driven by actual *hate*, a lot of the conservative positions either inevitably enable a disadvantageous position for the concerned parties (be it minorities, immigrants, women, LGBTQ etc), or seek to maintain status quo which keeps inequalities intact.

      But yes, conversation is necessary and the only thing achievable are compromises.

      To Clarence, over 80-90% of immigrants and new citizens tend to be non white. So yes, when you say first generation citizens shouldn't have a right to vote, you are essentially saying non white citizens shouldn't be able to vote. There is no reason for a citizen to have 2nd class status. That regardless of race, is in and of itself oppressive and a ridiculous idea to begin with.

    11. Conservatives would disagree that those policies ultimately disadvantage minorities. We believe that an approach that treats everybody equally is best for all. For example, I appreciate policies that lift all poor people up by providing enhanced opportunity (eg, scholarships based on financial need) (which may disproportionately impact minorities, but that's not the point).

      I disagreed with Clarence's policy at the time, as I recall, but did not imagine it stemmed from racism. I interpret Clarence's position more as a combo of don't move here hoping to change this way of life, move here to embrace the way of life that made this place attractive to begin with; and, you don't get to vote if you're habitually collecting welfare (you'll just want to vote yourself some more). Both worthy of discussion without throwing the "RACIST!" epithet around.

    12. Am sure conservatives would disagree. So would liberals. But that is why a conversation is necessary. Intent is always the issue and isn't always obvious.

      When someone from somewhere else moves here it will inevitably change your way of life. That is just the way things work so conservatives should be open to change and be open, accepting and curious about other cultures, values and people. I mean its boring otherwise to say the least. Also saying citizens on welfare shouldn't vote is basically an authoritarian position where the people with means decide what happens. It is anti-democratic. The poorer the people are, the more representation they need - infact I would go on to say their needs matter more than the needs of a person with means.

    13. "Intent" is very hard to objectively judge in most cases, yet folks go around constantly imputing intent, and it gets us nowhere. Take the words at face value and just debate, regardless of "intent".

      Of course it will. but we want immigrants who believe in basic human rights for all, separation of church and state, a well-regulated capitalism, democracy, law and order, a judicial system, and so on. If you're coming here hoping to change that (e.g., impose fundamentalist Islam) then you're not welcome (or, at the minimum, please don't vote - your kids who grow up here, ok).

      And I'm not talking about votes for the wealthy. The wealthy are a tiny percentage (it's where the term "1%er" came from, they only make up 1%). I'm talking about people who share the burden, like the school janitor, the lady at the checkout counter, and so on. Fine to help those who for some reason or another cannot contribute, but I don't want them voting your money if you are a contributor.

    14. Also I forgot to add, people that move here, are often times better off than many born and raised here. Immigration applications ask for financial proof. And 80% of immigrants are legal in the United States.

    15. Yup, I think our comments wooshed by one another but I covered it above. We're only talking about the legal ones here, the illegals cannot vote (I hope!).

    16. I agree intent is hard to judge, but hard to ignore as well. Which is why it is important to be politically correct, fwiw.

      Agree with what you said about immigration. But on the flip side, there are people who dont like immigrants simply because they are changing the racial make up of the region, or that there are more "ethnic" restaurants etc., I am against those kinds of attitudes. Of course I wouldn't support someone wanting to impose backward cultural values.

      I didn't get the last part you said. You dont support janitors or the lady at the checkout counter voting? Because they maybe on welfare? So what? They are voting for themselves which they have every right to. They have to represent their interests. If you are a net contributor, you are paying your share of taxes, and once you pay taxes, that money belongs to everyone, not just you. So I would disagree that they are voting your money.

    17. We have amazing food diversity here in Toronto, and we love it!

      No, I DO support them voting, because they're contributing by having a job.

      And that's a fucked up way of thinking about taxes! I am actually paying way more than "my share" of taxes (if you just divide total taxes by population and, or by consumption of services). I know there's this "you fair share" which is the stupidest Dem talking point ever. A completely empty phrase. What is anybody's "fair share" - that's the damned question, not the answer!!!!

    18. Fair share of taxes is whatever income tax bracket you fall under. It isn't proportional to how much govt assistance you use because that is a moot point - if you are paying a lot of taxes then you have no need for assistance. You could obviously dispute that your tax bracket is too high, and I would generally support that idea, as I think taxes are too high too.

      But once you give your money away in taxes, it is the governments money and they can use it to assist people who need it. This doesn't mean that those people shouldn't have a right to be represented, because welfare isn't the only policy position that people vote on. It is also the opposition's job, to represent your interests. I think the system self corrects and denying someone the right to vote, isn't the right direction - infact a lot of women would be the ones who would lose the right to vote if that were the law (seeing how women usually tend to be home makers or earn less than men).

    19. Also, forgot to add, you maybe paying more than your fair share, meaning you pay more in taxes than in govt assistance you utilize TODAY, but 25 years later, you maybe diagnosed with (god forbid and just for an example), cancer, which may require extensive treatment. You may also be retired and therefore have a very low income. Do you want the government to now charge you higher taxes because you are now using more govt assistance? But then again you may never need it, but your spouse might. Or your parents, or your siblings or your friends. So, it all works itself out in the end.

    20. Not a good definition of "fair share". Hint: there is no good definition - we work it out via discussion and compromise. No such concept has ever and will ever exist.

      At no point is the money we pay in taxes "the government's money to do with as they please". The government works for us and should spend it the way we want them to, as voted on by our elected representatives. If you get elected on a certain mandate, and then turn around and direct that money to something different (assuming nothing else changed) it is immoral, and hopefully you will be held accountable in the next election.

      Having kids and being a homemaker is a very productive occupation, that should definitely count for a vote providing the family unit as a whole is carrying their weight.

      And if I ever become a net burden to the system, I would expect to lose my right to vote under these rules, because now I'm a taker, not a giver. I don't object to folks being takers if they are ill or something, but then no vote.

    21. What you say regarding how the govt should work or spend money is true. But you forget that it is our elected representatives who have passed laws regarding taxes which means that is what we have endorsed. It is also our elected representatives who have passed laws regarding social assistance which means it is also something we have endorsed. So I dont really see the problem. If you disagree of course you have the right to vote your conscience.

      Also the purpose of democracy is to represent ALL citizens, equally, regardless of their socio economic status. Infact we have a democracy only because those people who you term net takers need representation. Otherwise we'd just have a monarchy like in the old times. There are citizens and non citizens. No second class citizens. I mean you are all for freedom of speech and expression. Voting rights are a means of expressing how you want the country to be run and you wanna stifle that?

      Finally, there is nobody who is a net taker. That is not even accurate. Everyone is a contributor. Social assistance, food stamps etc still contribute to the economy and the GDP. I mean they are still buying food, clothing, paying rent and so on. They also fall under a tax bracket and pay or not pay, depending on how much they earn. So everyone is a contributor.

      Also, Clarence's original point that new citizens should not have a right to vote, has nothing to do with anything we have discussed. It was pure hatred for someone he sees as belonging to an out-group. Infact he mentions it in his comment - "let them assimilate" - no need to assimilate culturally and forget your own culture in order to make an informed choice as a citizen. Thats just shows maliciousness.

    22. Nobody is a net taker? Really? Freeloaders and criminals certainly are.

      I don't want to stifle their voice. They can try to convince us that more of our money should go to them, but they don't get a vote. If their circumstances change and they become productive contributors then they can vote also, to help determine where their tax dollars should go.

      I know it's not practical.

    23. Criminals do contribute by being the consumers of prison services. They do spend money to buy stuff in prisons, work in prisons etc., Who do you think the state uses to fight fires in California for example? Not sure who freeloaders are - in my opinion there are none.

      You dont want to stifle their voice but they dont get to vote? How does that work? They speak through their representatives. So they need to vote.

    24. You should read some of the Austrian economists. If a criminal breaks a window, thus creating work for people, that is not a net benefit to society. Those people could have done other, productive things, had the criminal not broken the window.

    25. You originally threw racism charges at me for believing in a policy that I believe applies to every immigrant in whatever country they are trying to settle, INCLUDING MYSELF if I was to go to say, Japan and be permitted to try to make a life there. Let me put this fact into your head: There is NO RIGHT TO IMMIGRATE. In fact, the US EVEN WITHOUT it's mostly "Open Border" in the south has some of the easiest immigration laws in the world. Esp compared to places in Europe. Our long waits are mostly due to lack of logistical support for the many immigrants who do want to come legally.
      Unless you are a rich man OR some sort of 'desired minority', most countries in the world, esp in developed places like Europe make it extremely difficult.

      Given there is no right to immigrate the least we can expect from our immigrants is an understanding of, and dedication to the Constitution of the United States and largely dominant culture therein.

      The reasons we have an Open Southern Border are basically two, and they are both very ugly:
      1) Cheap labor
      2) Replacement of citizens with people who have not the understanding nor the history of Freedom and will be easier to boss around. They can't value Free Speech when they've never had it and know little of it, esp if someone is saying something they don't like. And the same with all the other rights.
      In short, current policy down there is deliberate, JUST as it was in 1965 when the whole new system was set up. And if you don't know what "new system" I'm talking about , you are ignorant and really shouldn't be talking about this subject.
      Lastly, one of the responsibilities of the Federal Government is to "Preserve and Protect" the Constitution, well, it's arguably not doing that with an open border and little to no Civics requirements to even legal immigrants.

      Lastly and importantly, the US is a Constitutional Democratic REPUBLIC not some sort of "Direct Democracy". The Common people are supposed to have rights that no 'majority vote' can take away, hence the Bill of Rights. The States are supposed to have some Representation in government as well and not just as a function of their population but their governments. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment took that away, and now rather than representing their State Governments vs the Federal Govt you often get Senators who play into popularity games, or worse, work to increase Fed power at the expense of the States. But the main point is, JUST like you have "Separation of Powers" in FedGov with the Executive, Congressional, and Judiciary, there was (and is to a lesser extent now) a separation of powers between citizens, states, and the FedGov.

      I shouldn't have to explain this to you, you should know it and should never use ridiculous arguments that you think apply to direct democracies (which almost invariably, per the Greek City States degenerate into Tyranny) with a Republican system like the US has. The Whole Goal of the US Constitution is to guarantee the rights of the common man by restricting the rights of the government AND the 'mob' and anyone who doesn't understand that should not ever be commenting on American politics.

    26. Multi part answer.

      Part 1:

      Different anon here responding to this latest comment from ClarenceComments. To set context I am an immigrant from India, who immigrated to the US and then to Canada where I now live. I know everything there is to know about US immigration law. I have been through the grinder.

      What you said regarding immigration is absolute garbage. Firstly, the fact that you think that the United States is an easy country to immigrate to, shows that you know absolutely nothing about immigration law in the US. But then again, why would you? The US has a very broken immigration system that makes it extremely difficult and uncertain for legal immigrants, especially highly skilled immigrants. Infact for someone from India, China or Mexico it takes about 25 years to become a permanent resident, and another 5 to become a citizen. 30 YEARS!! Absolute stupidity. Contrast that with Canada - I got my PR in 38 DAYS. I have now applied for citizenship and will get it by end of this year. So totally, 4 years. It is a similar story with most of EU, Australia and NZ. Additionally, to become a PR in the US you need to either be sponsored by family or employer. Absolute stupidity again! You are the one immigrating and you should be the one applying for it and making a case for why you want to live in the US - not your family or your employer.

    27. Part 2:

      I agree that illegal immigration has to be curbed. For illegal immigration to be reduced however, you need to fix the legal system first so people approach immigration legally and it is their first resort. I often times tell people it is far easier to be an illegal immigrant in the US than a legal immigrant precisely because the legal immigration system only fucks you over. It is why I moved to Canada and the US has a lot to learn from Canada on immigration. When a country makes your future uncertain and unstable, there is not a lot of love or appreciation you will have for it. In contrast, Canada has made me feel so secure, happy and fulfilled, that I will be a better Canadian citizen than an Indian citizen. Hah. (Not that I was a criminal in India or anything).

      Also the majority of countries of the world are republics. And all of these countries have freedom of speech, expression and so on. America is not some exception in this. Yes you do not automatically have a RIGHT to immigrate (I dont think it even makes sense to talk about right to immigrate, as immigrants are citizens of another country when they apply, so they are not really claiming any right, only applying per the legal process set up by your elected representatives), but once you do, and once you become a citizen, the country's constitution applies to everybody equally. There are no hierarchies in citizenry. Once you become a US citizen you are American and an American citizen will have a right to vote. This is infact captured in your declaration of independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". The "governed" here represents anyone who is a citizen. It doesn't exclude immigrants, because, hell, you are all immigrants anyway.

      Lastly, I do agree with your ramble on states rights and dont have much to say as it has nothing to do with the original criticism of you being racist towards new citizens because you didn’t want voting rights for them. I come from a country, and have immigrated to a country which are both federal states, much like the US. However given that the majority of immigrants are POCs, per the other anon commenter, you not wanting voting rights for them, has nothing to do with immigrants not knowing freedoms. Infact if America is more free, then that is precisely the case to let them vote and exercise freedoms that they previously did not have, not stifle their freedom by creating citizen hierarchies. That is contrary to American values in the first place. So yes, it is racist and bigoted of you to even suggest citizenship hierarchies.

    28. Wow, 2 comments, both so full of misinformation. Luckily, I can make this rather short. A) I already said the US legal immigration system was broken because it did not have enough resources devoted to it. It gets tiresome having to repeat what I already said because of some person who didn't read my comment felt he or she had to lecture me on something I already addressed. B) As an immigrant from India, you are a 'protected class' and a desirable immigrant for many countries. As much however, for your SKIN COLOR as for any skills you might possess. Yes, the truth hurts. But it is what it is. "Diversity" is one of the prongs of US Immigration law, and it is more explicitly stated in other countries laws. In short, you had it much easier than someone of European Ancestry. As for your complaint about skills based immigration, that is something that ENTIRELY should be at the WHIM of the host country putting its own citizens economic interests FIRST. Then there's your laughable idea of what constitutes "Freedom of Speech" , and your idea that the "majority of the world" is Republics. There's quite a few dictatorships now and in the past that have had "Democratic" or "Republic" in their names, but they were those thing in name only.Now to cover your misapprehensions about Freedom of Speech. Most of Europe , Canada , and the rest of the world do not have freedom of speech. Why? Because put aside the few countries that also have "Blasphemy" laws, most have "Hate Speech" laws. The US does NOT."Hate speech" is one of the most abused concepts there is and has been used to persecute and otherwise shut up all sorts of legitimate political and personal criticism. Since you didn't know this you fail the very first part of your Citizenship test, and I'm glad you are not in the US anymore. I'm glad you are happy in Canada. That means you will STAY there and be their problem. The US Constitution is also heavily based on two more ideas that are different than pretty much anywhere else in the whole fucking world: A) Natural Law (and this based on the Judeo Christian God)that gives Rights and B) the idea of "Negative" rights. THOU SHALT NOT. Most countries have "positive" rights: THOU SHALL. Thou is ENTITLED to this or that. The US is based on the idea of BEING LEFT ALONE by the Feds or the States or the MOB for that freaking matter, so you can find and make your own happiness and path in life. Need I mention the ridiculous childish and totalitarian gun laws in most of the rest of the world that we are busy fighting to eradicate here in the US?

      Once again, basic civics in the US. And I don't want anyone coming here and VOTING who doesn't fucking understand them because they are a threat to MY Freedoms, MY life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

      You throw an insult at me for wanting to protect my legal system, my Constitution, and my way of life, but all you've proved is that you were never fit to be a citizen here in the first place. You might be a nice guy in person , but you are wayyyyyy too willing to bend over for power and sacrifice my rights while you are at it.

    29. Oh, and by the way: I'd rather freaking have my 'exceptionalism' when it comes to common men being armed, my 'exceptionalism' when it comes to being free to say what I think EVEN IF it is bigoted by some lights or by all lights (unlike you, I hate the KKK but I value their right to say what they think). I'd rather have my 'exceptionalism' when it comes to Due Process , Freedom of Religion, and a whole bunch of other rights that are either severely curtailed or even non-existent in most of the rest of the world. I'd rather have that then 300 world wide military bases and the biggest military 'dick' on the block. So long as I'm left alone, I'm good.

    30. Part 3:

      I missed addressing one small point that you had made regarding the "new system" in 1965.

      I think you are talking about the Immigration and Nationality act of 1965. Yes? They basically did away with the national origins quotas that were racist and promoted white immigration from EU and artificially stifled non white immigration from Asia and Africa. In reality, immigrant populations for the most part tend to come from non white countries that are under developed or developing , in Asia and Africa, and that is precisely what happened.

      What is so bad about this? They did something right.

      My only gripe with that change is that they still maintained per country limits and quotas which are stupid. This is why India, China and Mexico have such long wait times. India and China make up 40% of the world. Of course the majority of immigrants are going to be from these two places. These two groups of immigrants are also the most successful in the US and are considered model minorities, so just process their applications fast and let them settle down for fucks sake instead of making them wait 30 fucking years!

    31. Jesus Christ. I shall try again. LOL. 

      1. We call the American immigration system broken for different reasons. You call it broken because it allows immigration from non white countries (in your opinion preferentially), while I call it broken - and it is the actual reason for it being broken - is that it is too full of red tape and takes too much of time to get anything done. 

      2. There is no formal definition either in writing or in policy, of protected classes in the US immigration system. So this is just race baiting bullshit. There used to be a diversity visa but it allowed very few people in per year, and only from countries from where there was very little immigration to begin with (like Israel for example). Most non white countries (like India) wouldn’t qualify for the diversity visa. I actually checked. I didn’t qualify because there were already too many Indians in the US apparently lmao. 

      3. Skills based immigration - Yes, that is based on what the US deems, it needs. But that is precisely why we are here. Because we got the visa because of our skills. I am talking about permanent residency applications, which take an insane amount of time, not because they are actually making a decision on whether or not they need our skills, but because they have quotas and therefore people from India, China and Mexico go on a waiting list for decades. Its stupid. Quotas are stupid. 

      4. I did not specifically address freedom of speech in my previous post at all. I dont really have a problem with free speech absolutism, because any “hate speech” will have its own consequences and things will take care of themselves. Similarly, I dont have a problem with the 2nd amendment (although I think there needs to be modifications to gun laws). Infact I dont care about guns that much at all. Go nuts, and have all the guns that you want. 

      5. I should have said, most of the *democratic* world, are republics. But oh well.

      6. Civics requirements - yes the US has them. You literally have to study and write a test in civics when you apply for citizenship.

      7. Your idea of freedoms (or the freedoms defined in the US constitution for that matter) - be it of speech, guns etc, do NOT have to be shared by any immigrant. They can have alternate views and opinions, and that is PRECISELY what you call FREEDOM, that your constitution protects!. Get that through your head. We dont immigrate to suck up to racist douchebags and become second class citizens. We immigrate to live our lives the way we want to live it, while being net contributors. And most of us are - we are very successful often times more than citizens themselves.

      8. Your idea that the rest of the world lacks freedoms - is a classic American trait, where you have blinders on. Every major democratic country out there has extensive freedoms. There are other freedoms you enjoy that people in those countries dont care about - I am specifically referring to the 2nd amendment. If you go to India and tell people, hey do you want guns? What if we created a law that enabled you to have weapons, they will simply ask you “WTF do you expect me to do with guns”. So what you consider freedom, isn’t considered a necessity in other parts of the world. That doesn’t mean they dont have freedoms, they have what they want.

      You are not wanting to protect your constitution or your legal systems. You have a bigoted definition of what the American way of life is and want to oppress people who you see as not fitting in, because of their skin color.

    32. Clarence, most excellent takedown re the amazingness of the US Constitution. I admire it greatly.

    33. Anonymous from India, please stop throwing around accusations that others are racist unless they actually write something racist. As it is, Clarence has made clear that the policies he espouses are colour-blind. I'm sorry that legal immigrants have such a tough time, and Clarence has agreed with you that the system is broken.

      When Clarence speaks of US freedoms, he specifically listed what he means by that and the differences with respect to other countries. As a Canadian, I agree with him. We absolutely do not have the same enshrined freedoms. Now, you may argue that it's a better system when people are less free, but that's a different discussion.

    34. The Canadian constitution trumps the US constitution any day Julie. Be a good Canadian now. It is after all the country that birthed you ;)

    35. He uses freedoms, the constitution and other things to justify his bigotry. But his opinions are predicated on all kinds of presumptions and opinions about people, what kind of freedoms they have in their country of origin, that they are only here because of some conspiracy by the US govt to preferentially admit people and that if they disagree with ANYTHING they dont get to vote etc., So am just calling it as it is. This guy in real life, will look down on people as foreign and alien and will never respect or treat an immigrant as an equal because of all of these presumptions. It is racism 101. Or maybe it isn't racism. Maybe it is ignorance. Maybe he needs more immigrant friends. I dont know. One of the two.

    36. No, the Canadian Charter is pretty weak on certain things and there is not a lot of case law as compared to the US constitution. It also has the "notwithstanding" clause which means any province can override any part of it at will.

    37. Anonymous, you're what's wrong with modern-day discourse. Rather than debating the merits of his colour-blind position that he would even apply to himself, you immediately mind-read an evil and racist motivation. That attitude shuts down all manner of discourse, usually to the detriment of solving issues that impact minorities (eg, black on black violent crime in the US).

      He espouses that you need to be born in the country to have full citizenship including right to vote. I could get behind that. Heck, that sort of rule is in place now if you wish to run for US President. Is that "racist"? Let's ask Barack Obama.

    38. Yes I agree that we need to get rid of section 33. But it isn't like any Canadians rights have been denied or overridden till now?

      I am not mind reading anything. I am directly talking about what he has quoted in his own post. The premise of his arguments can be summarized as:

      1. Immigrants come from countries that are not as free as the US - Not true. Maybe in some case, but irrelevant for the purposes of immigration.
      1a. That if they do come from a country with less freedom, they wont have an appreciation or understanding for actual freedoms - Absolutely not true. Infact those people understand the values of freedoms more than Americans who take it for granted.

      2. Immigrants do not have an understanding of the US constitution - Not true. Immigrants have basic understanding of the constitution. However, deep, thorough knowledge of the US constitution, civics etc is both unnecessary and impractical. Even American citizens who were born in the US dont know much about the US constitution or civics.

      3. That American culture, values and way of life are somehow set in stone, are superior to others and are defined per Clarence and his compatriots - Again not true. The US is a very diverse, imperfect country that suffers from social issues like any other country. You take the good, leave the bad.

      4. That immigrants are a threat to his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - Not true. Paranoic and irrational. Immigrants want to establish a life for themselves and are more worried about practical issues such as jobs, education, housing etc. They are not trying to become political activists to petition the govt to remove some constitutional right (such as the 2nd amendment).

      5. That immigrants are only allowed in the US because of some conspiracy from 1965 where they decided to disproportionately and preferentially admit non white people over white people - Absolutely not true. They simply did away with the National Origins Formula that artificially made sure that 99% of immigration was from Europe, and stifled immigration from Asia and Africa.

      Yes he uses glib, "color blind" language. Which is what people like Steve Bannon do. But the summary and content of his arguments, are undoubtedly driven by a hostile attitude towards non white immigrants that he sees as foreign, alien, untrustworthy, dangerous and as not fitting in. That IS racism 101. Or to give him the benefit of the doubt, possibly ignorance.

      Also why could you so easily get behind denying rights to people? You speak of freedoms and in the same sentence have no qualms about denying constitutional freedoms to a section of citizens because they are "new"? This is a ridiculous and dishonest position in the face of it. I think you are "Getting behind" this idea because you have this need to be my political opponent than to say what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.

    39. I forgot to address that last point Julie, where you talked about the natural born citizen requirement. Yes it is backward and discriminatory. Anyone, regardless of where they are born, should be able to run for the highest office in the country, as long as they are citizens. Canada has the US beat in this regard. The US is really a third world country with a lot of money in many ways and they dont really have a proper democracy.

      A minor point about discourse that occurred as an afterthought after I posted my response earlier. Why would I get into a discourse or debate with anybody about me losing my rights to have my interest represented in the government? Have you thought about that? I dont immigrate to another country to lose my rights. I want all of my existing rights and freedoms to vote, speech, expression, thought, belief, religion etc. AND I want MORE. More money, better and cleaner cities, a more liberal culture, a better quality of life, a free healthcare system, a better healthcare system, a govt that works better and is more transparent and so on. What Clarence was originally proposing is me having less rights than before - like literally it doesn't make any sense for me to even get into a debate and acknowledge that it is even something worth considering. So no, I may argue/debate here on the blog. But out there in the real world, those things need to be nipped in the bud. My freedoms which dont infringe on anyone else's are more important than someone else's irrational paranoia.

    40. "Undoubtably" - that is where you go wrong. You are 100% sure his position is motivated by racism. You seem to see racists everywhere, behind every tree, hidden in every bush. Stop it.

      Voting in the US elections is not a "right" in the sense of the natural rights of humans.

      Canada has these dreadful new "hate speech" and censorship laws coming down at us. There has already been in existence "human rights tribunals" that are a sort of kangaroo court.

      Yes, some, or even many immigrants know and respect the constitution. However many also come from countries that have no tradition of human rights, they come for the economic prosperity, and they attempt to bring their way of life with them, not understanding the link between continued prosperity and freedom. Clarence's proposal is an effective guard against that.

      Clarence is not proposing taking away any rights you currently have. He is saying a condition of new immigration is you can come, but you can't vote. But any kids born here will be able to when of age. We can discuss that without getting all butt hurt about "mu rights!" Most people don't vote anyways.

    41. Yes I am 100% sure his motivations are driven by a hostile attitude to people he sees as not belonging. I dont accuse people of racism unless they say something racist or bigoted the way Clarence has. 

Voting is absolutely a right. Once you become a citizen, it is an absolute right even per natural law. Natural law applies to all humans. If I commit a crime in the US, regardless of my citizenship status, natural law would apply. Similarly, I have the natural right to vote, once I am a citizen.

      I completely and totally support hate speech laws, and HRTs. Of course we can agree to disagree here. But my freedom to walk tall without being racially abused, harassed, bullied or otherwise treated differently is more important than someone else’s right to vent their biases and take it out on me.

      If you are talking about say, someone from the middle east wanting Sharia law in the west, then the existing laws take care of that. There is no need to stifle their right to be represented as there is no real guard needed. You dont want hate speech laws, but you want laws against things you hate. Do you not see your bias?

      I vote. I vote in my country, and once I get Canadian citizenship I will vote here. And proposing that I shouldn’t have a right to vote, is denying me my rights. Voting is a right and infact a duty of every citizen.

    42. You're just digging a deeper and deeper hole, demonstrating your intolerance of other people's views.

      I think Clarence's proposition is that you don't become a full citizen, but kids born there could be. There, are you happy?

      "I want laws against things I hate"? I hate murder and robbery, and yes I want laws against that. I hate boiled brussel spouts, but do not want a law against that. I hate unjustified accusations of others of racism, but dont propose a law against somebody idiotically saying it.

    43. I am of course intolerant of someone trying to violate my rights because of my country of origin. No it is not acceptable to not become a full citizen. Permanent residency is that status where you are not a full citizen. Once you are granted citizenship, there are no classes.

      If you dont want a law against someone idiotically saying something racist (that actually impacts people), then you shouldn't also want a law that prevents someone from voting just because they believe in cultural values you dont (which doesn't impact you).

    44. You're confusing "rights" with a country's decision about who and how and when to admit immigrants as citizens.

    45. THANK YOU, Julie. It gets tiresome with this person imputing thoughts to my head and malice to my heart. And what's worse is this idiot wanted (at one time) to live in my country. I don't know what 'skills' this person, for instance, purports to possess but they apparently don't include advance English reading. I mention (Twice, mind you!) that the big problem with the legal immigration process in the US is that it doesn't have enough resources. This would seem to indicate to a reasonable person that I realize it's not fast enough, but somehow idiot here instead has a take-away that I don't think it's keeping out enough colored people or something. Now, personally, I think there should be an IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM for a good TEN to FIFTY years (though if I did that I'd allow everyone participating in the LEGAL IMMIGRATION process in first) to allow the US to assimilate (and I mean this in the 1920's way where they had special schools, though TIME ITSELF might do the trick if we wait the 50 years) the millions of legal and illegal immigrants it already has. But if we aren't going to do that (and currently the globalist labor traders in Washington have no interest whatsoever) the LEAST we can do is fix our broken legal immigration system so people aren't waiting ridiculous amounts of time and also so they have no decent excuse to skip it. All this being said, our 'friend' here has exhibited nothing but entitlement(once again no right to immigrate anywhere) and hostility(I take accusations of racism as an insult) and I'm not happy that he's in your country. He should be back in his original land fixing the problems there, rather than importing them via his attitudes and demands to your country, but his presence is ultimately on your government's head, so please don't forget that.
      Oh, and yet another correction because our anonymous idiot apparently can't distinguish the immigration policies of Trump and Biden : Diversity is back as a prong of US immigration law BIG TIME baby. Now me, I'd value skills, and political dissidents, refugees , and the few people from abroad who love the US so much that A) Either they did us a big favor somehow or B) They can pass a Master's level test on US Constitutional law. I could care less if 90 percent of these people came from Europe or from India or from Africa. But alas, I'm not in charge of US immigration policy and one important thing to the Biden Admin is that even more non-white faces are imported because that is one of the retarded ways they measure 'success' of their immigration policies.

    46. Well said (minus the insults, but calling you 'racist" is a lot worse, so you get a few free shots in return, IMO).

      It's a common attitude that any policy at all that results in unequal outcome between any of the myriads of possible ways you can group people ("intersectionality") is bad. For example, enforcing laws equally is now under attack because some groups have higher rates of criminality and thus those groups would be jailed more.

      As soon as you take that position, equality of opportunity needs to go out the window, even though equality of outcome can never be possible. When you lose equal opportunity, it's basically tyranny and will inevitably lead to great resentment and division.

      The true divisive people are therefore those espousing this equality of outcome goal.

    47. Julie - I am not confusing rights with a country's decision on who to admit as citizens. I am saying AFTER becoming a citizen, it is my RIGHT to vote.

    48. That's a definitional tautology. You define a citizen as someone who has the right to vote, and then say it is violating that right to not let them vote. Yes. Obviously.

      The proposition is that an immigrant is not admitted to full citizenship as currently defined, that they remain as some form of a citizen/PR hybrid.

    49. Clarence:

      “THANK YOU, Julie. It gets tiresome with this person imputing thoughts to my head and malice to my heart. And what's worse is this idiot wanted (at one time) to live in my country.”

Do you really think that I cannot live in the US again? My girlfriend is a dual citizen of US and Canada. We MAY decide to move to the US at a later point depending on other factors. So there goes your dream of keeping me out of the US forever. lol.

      “I mention (Twice, mind you!) that the big problem with the legal immigration process in the US is that it doesn't have enough resources.”

      I read it dummy. But apparently it is you that lacks reading comprehension skills, as I already explained, that the reasons for delays in the legal immigration process are quotas. Resources have nothing to do with it.

      I dont think the rest of your post merits comment, as it is basically a rant on how I am entitled and how I shouldn’t be in your country or in Canada for that matter. Yes, I am entitled to what I am entitled. I also did say that I dont have a RIGHT to immigrate, but ONCE I DO, I have RIGHTS (I dont even have to be citizen for the US constitution to protect me, legally speaking). “Assimilation” is a nonsensical notion - no one really assimilates. We dont forget our culture, traditions or country of origin just because we immigrate. We learn to love both. This shouldn’t be this difficult to understand or accept.

      “They can pass a Master's level test on US Constitutional law.”

      I dont think you understand why immigrants immigrate, or what their priorities are. Firstly, educate your own countrymen on your constitution and make sure they all have “masters level knowledge” before you advocate that for immigrants. 

Also, any immigrant is allowed to have contrary views to your constitution. For example, I could advocate for removal of the 2nd amendment because of extensive gun violence in the country. It wouldn’t be anything different from what your own countrymen are proposing. I could advocate that I may want the 1st amendment amended to define and place restrictions on “hate speech”. Again nothing different from what many of your own countrymen are proposing. You may not agree, and that is cool, But the principles of free thought, speech, expression and belief apply to citizens and immigrants EQUALLY. And they apply EQUALLY regardless of citizenship status.

      Your proposals are not just impractical and nonsensical, they are also hypocritical. You want your freedoms, but you do not want freedoms for immigrants, because god forbid they use their freedom of speech, to say something contrary to your views, which MAY start a conversation and do away with rights you deem are sacrosanct. You are basically saying, you can speak as long as you speak what I want to hear. What a joke!

      “I could care less if 90 percent of these people came from Europe or from India or from Africa. “


      “But alas, I'm not in charge of US immigration policy and one important thing to the Biden Admin is that even more non-white faces are imported because that is one of the retarded ways they measure 'success' of their immigration policies.”

Give me sources. Show me a formal policy or written document where “non white people are imported”. We are not commodities to be imported. There are just more non white people than white people in the world. And white people already live in developed parts of the world - parts of the world where they have a better quality of life than people in the US. So there is no reason for them to immigrate to the US.

    50. Response to Julie's 2nd comment:

      I do think we need to prioritize equality of opportunity over outcomes. Especially when it comes to gender.

      There are others where opportunity needs to be prioritized but outcomes still need to considered for - lower economic classes (regardless of race), non white races and non-cis gender identities.

    51. I am not defining a citizen that way. I am not defining a citizen at all infact. I am saying that once you become a citizen of a country, you have the right to vote. There are only 3 differences between a citizen and a PR - citizens hold passport of the country they live in, they can run for office, they can vote. If one or more of these are denied, then you are not a citizen.

      "The proposition is that an immigrant is not admitted to full citizenship as currently defined, that they remain as some form of a citizen/PR hybrid."

      This is both unnecessary and unreasonable. That's like saying "You will never EVER belong here and be one of us". This proposition is dead on arrival, am afraid.

      You are required to spend a certain number of years as a PR, where you dont vote (3 years for Canada, 5 years for the US). That is more than enough time to assimilate, understand and acclimate to the country you have immigrated to. There is no reasonable justification to deny people citizenship after that unless they commit crimes. Please understand that someone who is alienated by being treated as second class, will never assimilate either. The country you immigrate to has to be welcoming and accepting for you to feel any love or attachment to it. Denying voting rights or citizenship will therefore only serve to alienate and isolate people which is counter productive.

    52. Welp, DUMBASS comes back for more. And rather than the APOLOGY that he OWES me for his ridiculous constant insults about racism he once again tries to tell me what I meant about this and that and about my own countries immigration policies. So to lay it out -

      It's a lack of resources and it has been that way for at least 30 years now. I'm not doing any more work for you. Not only are you stupid, but you are also lazy.

      "Yes, I am entitled to what I am entitled. I also did say that I dont have a RIGHT to immigrate, but ONCE I DO, I have RIGHTS ..."
      Blah,blah, blah, blah.
      You rely on modern interpretations of certain immigration caselaws which have changed over time and some of which (note I said SOME since nuance is not your strong suit) I would change back.
      Then there was your ridiculous ideas on what assimilation entails. 1. Some don't assimilate at all. Ever heard of La Raza? 2. Some assimilate totally to the extent of either being ashamed of or just wanting to forget their former country. They learn English and teach their kids that and NOT their native language and etc etc. 3. Most come out somewhere in the middle, retaining aspects of their old culture and adding the new. That too, is acceptable, WHEN it is on the PERSONAL not the POLITICAL level.

      "Firstly, educate your own countrymen on your constitution and make sure they all have “masters level knowledge” before you advocate that for immigrants."
      While a country can have any unfair or hypocritical immigration policy it wants, do you really think this makes an argument for immigration? If anything it makes an argument against immigration as we don't need to add more people, dumb in civics, to our country.
      "Also, any immigrant is allowed to have contrary views to your constitution. For example, I could advocate for removal of the 2nd amendment because of extensive gun violence in the country."
      As someone who values my Bill of Rights:
      A) Why the FUCK would I let you in my country?
      B) If , for some misguided humanitarian impulse I let you enter the US (let's say the rest of the world is Zombie Apocalypse and I don't want your dumb ass to get eaten) why the HELL would I let you vote? If you don't value the US's Freedoms than I don't want you here, and if you MUST be here, I certainly don't want your input into my political system UNTIL OR UNLESS you have changed your mind and I'm quite willing to go to the use of force (up to and including deadly violence) to prevent it. All I see in you right now is a shock troop for the anti-democratic and anti-republican "New World Order". You are very lucky that I am content to play within the US's political order and try , ONCE AGAIN (Trump was like the fourth time and he is the only one that actually TRIED to do anything on immigration or a million other areas where the US needs reform)for reform, rather than take the less pleasant route.As for the rest, do your own research. I'm not your errand boy, and I'm esp not willing to do any more work than what I feel like for ungrateful rude jerk such as yourself.

      Are you SURE you are a not a troll being paid to make immigrants look as bad as possible?

  30. Wow. Came here for some kinky inspiration and once again you words have killed the mood. I don’t care what your politics are, and it’s your blog, but is there any chance you might consider a separate blog to expound on the non kinky things? I deal with this stuff every day and come here for escape. Your devolution into politics has become an even bigger boner killer than the thought of my toothless mother-in-law dancing naked. I say this as someone who has followed your blog and growth since the beginning.

    1. Easy solution, skip the political blogs. There's already a sexy one posted past this one at the time you wrote this comment. Thus I call bullshit on your boner killer claim. My guess? You're a lefty who can't address the substance of the post, so you try to use some words to hurt me.

  31. Hello Julie,
    I have to say thank you for offering a different side to the view on the US politics. Your sharing of pro-Trump and conservative views is a nice change in the kink world. I have seen other bloggers also post on their kinky blog left leaning ideas. Now everyone is untitled to their own views. And with you sharing yours, you have put a target on yourself. This not a target on your butt for spanking, but attacks by those that have different opinions than you. Some will tell you to keep it kinky, but this is your blog. Hell if you want to share a recipe, then you can do it. I applaud you for sharing your finds. . I hope that my country can learn from this, but Kennedy was assassinated about 60 ago and people still think there is stuff being hidden. 18 minutes goes missing on recording. Thousand of emails are deleted. The fact that one can trust the government only so far. Thank you for sharing.

    1. Anybody who naively trusts the government and media nowadays, as my opponents often do, are being very mislead.

    2. You get more shit for expressing your political views, Julie, than any other kink blogger I know. Of the roughly fifteen or twenty or so kinky blogs that sometimes cover politics that I know about, only 2 can be called conservative or Deploreable and you are one of those two! The other one has a much smaller audience and tends to only attract a few comments, mostly from supporters. Something like seventy five percent of the rest that cover politics are self proclaimed Progressive or Radical feminists with a predictable leftwing slant on pretty much everything (lots of "Patriarchy" blaming on most of them) and of course Trump is the Devil. Some of these are 'male feminists' (about 5 or 6 of the blogs off the top of my head) and 3 of the 5 are downright based on theories of female supremacy up to and including removing the right of men to vote. The rest of the feminist kink blogs are run by women who don't hesitate to let the world know what they think of US or Western politics in general. Then there are two or three blogs that are just progressive men who do not identify as feminist but also hold a generalized leftwing or social justice view of things. My point? In all of these progressive blogs, literally ALL of them, you rarely see any pushback in the comments sections. Either to 'off topic' posts, (the blogs are, after all, nominally kink adjacent and, to be fair, some mostly ARE nonpolitical ) or to what was said. It's almost entirely smug echo chambers all around. Your blog is different. It's intelligent, you allow all sorts of views, and you hardly ever back down unless proven wrong. Your posts tend to be long and detailed and not just temper tantrums over the latest male or Republican or Deplorable
      atrocity' (such as valuing Free Speech or Due Process) or smug put downs of the other side.

      I know this post is long. I just wanted you to know I appreciate what you do (both the kink AND the political posts) and I notice the unreasoning hatred and double standards you are constantly subjected to.

    3. Thank you Clarence. I once dared to mildly challenge an extreme left wing view on Vanessa Chaland's blog and was told never to visit or comment again 😂. They tend to be very intolerant people. I was also removed as a long-standing link on several of the blogs you mentioned based on some anonymous guy promoting a campaign against me by email. They manage to self-justify it as "personal preference", but it's so obviously a form of "reach censorship" that it makes me giggle. Will stand strong, sigh, and thank you for your reasoned support.

  32. I watched the doc. Leaves room for doubt. Best debunk I heard was if the mules went to multiple drop boxes in a single run, why was not video evidence of that presented front and Center? Like 1am here, 1:10am here, 1:23am here, ... Also, why don't they make their data public so others can repeat and verify the analysis?

    1. Finally! I've found intelligent life! Thank you. The video thing is an excellent point and the sort of thing I have been looking for. Yeah, why didn't they??? Raises suspicions.

      The other point may be because they said they had to spend $2M to purchase the data, and I can well imagine there are clauses that prohibit them from re-distributing it. If somebody else wanted to spend the same $2M, they could purchase the same data and run an independent analysis on it.

    2. Yeah, I get you on the second point. That's likely true.

      On the first point, they did say their video data was pretty spotty because they didn't get a lot of cooperation, as you said, so maybe they don't have enough? Still seems hard to imagine they don't have at least one example like I said.

      Other debunk I heard is that people carry multiple devices around. Well, probably not the people doing this for a living, and if so, their tracks would be identical in time and in space so easy to filter that out if they were motivated to do so. They didn't say either way, so I'm suspicious that they just left it in to jack the numbers?

      The trouble with this sort of evidence is that it's not suitable for a courtroom. It's "aggregated" sort of evidence. It should be convincing to politicians to motivate them to either not certify an election results (if out in time), or change the system so that kind of think can't happen in the future. But the Democrats will ignore it and the Republicans are already pushing for it, so I doubt this evidence will change much of anything. Maybe give the Republicans a bit more political backbone to continue fighting for more secure and auditable elections, which is obviously needed.

  33. Every actual case of voter fraud , not suspected fraud but actual voter fraud in the 2020 election has been Republican. It's a very small number in each state and it's all republican. They would need to find 3 million votes. this is nothing but smoke and mirrors

    1. Not 3 millions. Did you not even read my blog??? Or others' comments. The documentary shows how the 380,000 votes they estimated were illegal at their super high bar standard would have swung the election. The theoretical minimum number is far less than that.

      And re proven cases of election fraud, you are way out of touch, and your "talking point" shows your clear bias. Here is a database of convicted fraud:

      Here is one of the many cases listed:
      Trenae Myesha Rainey, 28, pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of making a false statement on an absentee ballot application. During the 2020 general election, Rainey, an employee at an assisted living facility, completed roughly two dozen absentee voter applications, forging individual signatures of residents. She then handed over the ballots to another employee, whom she instructed to send the absentee ballot requests to the county election clerk. Rainey was sentenced to two years' probation, in which the first 45 days would be spent in the county jail.
      (more here:

  34. This is just sad. Your "tremendous" "evidence" is a few videos of people who were legally collecting ballots from people who had preexisting medical conditions and couldn't drop them off themselves because they were quarantining or who are too poor working 3 jobs and can't afford to take an entire day off to stand in line for 8 hours to vote. I know this may be hard for someone like you who actually has zero first hand experience with voting in the U.S. to understand, but all ballots are reviewed by poll workers who have books that say exactly where each person lives. So it's not possible for vote fraud to be committed on the scale of this wild speculation. And please stop using words incorrectly, they have real definitions. Don't call something "evidence" when it's actually not that at all. It's nothing more than SPECULATION. You realize when a Republican wins in 2024 or 2028 your lowered bar for "vote fraud" will just be used against you right? Will you commit to supporting the Democrat's own version of stop the steal in 2024 if a republican wins, even if there's no hard evidence, like now?

    1. Interesting how you build a weak strawman argument you claim I made and then argue that. The much more compelling evidence is the geolocation data. It is bolstered by the video evidence.

      I think your understanding of how mass mail-in and dropbox voter verification works is very naive.

  35. Shutting down comments now. Feel free to email if you wish to discuss more. Thanks for your contributions!